It is decidedly unconscionable that anyone in the public would have to seek a
redress of grievances from the the head of an organization or government in asking
for assistance in resolving an issue... particularly when an internal department
or legislative body has been uniquely set up for this purpose; and yet prefers to
mitigate requests for assistance with unnecessary defiant, albeit polite and courteous,
absurdity by reciting some procedural and process (processional) accountability
standard being judiciously, fairly (and ceremoniously) executed in accord with a
credibility conveniently established by way of a legal contrivance... frequently
attached with some letterhead formality that we should esteem with unparalleled
honor and reverent obeisance as an admission of alliance, allegiance and self-refuted
allegation for having been wronged and will hereafter submit ourselves towards
advocating the reality of circumstances as 'they' (in some self-admired authoritative
position) deem it proper for us to do so. Simplistically put, 'they' not only want
to participate in the design of the game, but be permitted to change the rules at
a legislative, judicial or authoritative whim, and all others are but different forms
of to-be-chosen game pieces like the shoe, iron or thimble in a Monopoly game. Oh
yes, and let us not fail to mention, for those who have not as yet availed their
consciousness of the reality that the present design of democracy permits a few to
have a monopoly, supported by a like-minded Supreme Court, and will most likely get
very angry when it is suggested that everyone should be permitted to collectively
do the same.

→ ~ ←

For example, there was once encountered an event involving the respected individual
of a social group who decided to join in the playing of a just-for-fun card game
with other friends who frequently played together, but the individual had not done
so on any previous occasion. And it should be mentioned that although money was
not used, there was a type of betting in the form of keeping score and making claims
of going to win a particular hand or even the overall game except for a given moment's
satisfaction which did not linger long and did not improve nor detract from someone's
social position in the group... Since winning and losing alternated from player to
player and game to game, wins and losses had no real value of calculation.

The opening rule of the game, commonly observed as a taken-for-granted 'given' by
the group every time they played together, stated that the dealer was permitted to
decide which, if any, of the cards were wild... thus providing the holder of such
cards an opportunity for acquiring additional points. Each player, in turn, got an
opportunity to participate as the dealer and thus choose not only what cards were
wild, but, as an occasionally added proviso, how many cards could be dealt out...
if they so chose to exercise the ability. All was going reasonably well until about
the third dealer's alternative "wild card" choices were selected. Everyone seemed
to quickly make the mental adjustment, no doubt working out potentially viable
individual strategies as the cards began being dealt out; until the group was met
with an array of totally unexpected antagonisms from the individual who wanted
everyone to "play by the 'real' rules" that the individual was more accustomed
to and comfortable with, as interpreted from their reading of the printed rules
accompanying the game... and were read out-loud to the rest of us as if to add
authoritative weight to the individual's opinion that everyone should conform to
their request... despite the alternative collective opinion of everyone else.

Retrospectively viewed, the individual's enjoyment for "really" winning was a
presumption derived from "playing by the rules" as they were "codified" on the
instructions supplied with the game and interpreted as an authoritative injunction.
The individual had no imagination nor much tolerance for making alterations which
might benefit everyone, though this was the undefined implication... yet it was
never described to the individual or the other players as such, at the time. The
rest of the group had made and accepted their individual deduction of being benefitted
by the "changing rule provision", as if it were as logical as adopting their life
to a daylight savings time rule-of-thumb. Playing a game by rules established by
the group was easily understood not only as an equality, but as a right that was
obviously wrong not to adopt and practice.

It was a rather extraordinary scene to witness this rather muscular and "cool"
individual become so upset by a provision that the rest of the players took so
matter-of-factly without need for an extended debate. It was a simple rule to
appreciate and accommodate one's mindset to. But the individual became remarkably
distraught by the differential change in the selection of wild cards and how much
they were worth; an event no doubt compounded into a greater misgiving by the
accompanying rule that the dealer also was able to determine how many cards were
dealt out. For all intents and purposes there was a general assumption that
the individual was "as normal as the rest of us" since they effected to exhibit
an interest in adopting a "normal" life-style involving employment, marriage and
the like (as opposed to criminality, or a listless indifference towards an occupation,
personal goals, etc...); little realizing it was a type of facade, with respect
to them, which concealed an otherwise chronic disposition towards inflexible concrete
thinking. Ideas revolving around a latent form of autism or some other vagary of
similar orientation were far removed from any possible consideration at the time.

With respect to the consideration that this individual may have harbored some
undiagnosed or even unsuspected form of latent autism, let us extend this proposal
of interjected conversation to a larger landscape as an attempt at an objectified
re-focusing applied to a much wider breadth of human activity. While for some it
may well be quite difficult to imagine the behavior of a company, nation or cultural
practice as exhibiting some incongruity to a presumed rationality void of any errant
quality; others may find its inclusion as an obvious, but overlooked simplification
they can easily appreciate, if not at face value, then by way of some approximated
metaphor which elicits at least a smile... if not outright chuckling or gut-panged
jocularity. Indeed, the joke on ourselves is the reserved contemplation that all
businesses, governments and religions represent some latent chromosomal damage.

A statement such as the foregoing is not actually that difficult to be provided
with some merit when we take into consideration all the cellular damage caused by
environmental changes and human induction such as chemically treated foodstuffs.
While some may want to philosophically counter that such institutions of today are
far better than their primitive origins and thus exhibit a greatness or even genius;
and that the presumed "excellence" of acquired thought may be more in tune with the
biological metaphor of mutation— the previous comment of a latent form of
autism might well include accumulated groups (repositories) of latent forms of
expressed mental illness... Yep, it's a crazy world because it is designed by very
crazy people who use numerous legal and other authoritative means and methods to
"convince" less-crazy people to join in playing their particularly "sound" game of
(judge-mental) madness... a din which makes so many "normal" people deaf, even to
their own voice of diminished group insanity and increased individual rationality...
but that can be magnified and echoed by way of a Cenocracy. Cenocracy is an enlightened
practice of Democracy.

When the above indicated individual's requests for playing the game "the right way"
were expressed with a very apparent discordance of affect in facial appearance along
with an otherwise overall explicitly calm exterior; an older, parental member of
the group wanted everyone to accommodate the request of the individual so that we
would "play nice" together. However, the rest of the group thought the suggestion
of playing "the right way" was silly because that was exactly what the group
was doing in a collectively agreed upon way, and the individual's desire for engaging
in a practice of the individual's "the right way" assumption; detracted from the
enjoyment derived by their "improvement" of the rules by being given a personalized
in-turn voice. Playing by the "codified" rules were not fun because they detracted
from the players' ability to exercise expressions of individualized personality that
gave them a real measure of control over, and might well lead to some profit. Letting
a single dealer voice a collective opinion of all the players as they prefer to
express what they think they interpret being said, would have been an undesirable
form of Representation. Most people prefer to have their own opinion count for
something, and not be provided with a mere illusion thereof.

Despite the outspoken desire of the individual asserting that everyone should
follow the rules expressed in writing by the company that manufactured the game,
the other players not only liked being in a role of momentary control... of being
the leader; but that there was a practiced fairness in that each would get another
chance as the dealership exchange revolved around the group. While a person could
exercise the third rule option of passing their opportunity at dealing to the next
player, it was never used. Overall, the group did not want to relinquish a game
rule which not only benefited everyone, but enabled each person to individually
contribute to the game; and did not need someone telling the group how to play a
game according to another's singular definition of right and wrong, when the
collective decision of permitting individualized expression was the right game
with the right rules for the group.

There was no aristocratic type of hierarchy (or economic-centered oligarchy) in
the form of a single dealer or in-the-box rules which deprived players from voicing
their own opinion or defining the form and function of individualized opinion—
that other dealers might or might not copy when they got a chance to alter the rules...
intended for everyone's benefit. Such a dealership role-playing schematic prevented
others from cheating or else-wise everyone was permitted to cheat, creating a state
of undesirable free-for-all that would result in an abrupt end to the game and produce
an enduring distrust and social disorganization. If one is permitted to cheat, then
all should be permitted... which will bring about anarchy... a situation which is
forcibly controlled by authority who likes playing a multi-flavored game of double-
standards, like a boxed set of all-in-one board game assortment. The design of the
leadership (dealership) and rules-change formula as it was played in the game, enabled
everyone to participate on behalf Of, By, and For everyone.

The circumstance, when viewed in terms of an extrapolated social self-governance
effect, was a very simplified form of Cenocracy; though it was not recognized,
described, nor labeled in such terms... but is used quite often by many, in different
instances, as if it were the beginnings of a larger unfolding consciousness in the
making. However, the extrapolation should not be viewed in a one-to-one corresponding
fashion as a means of refuting some applicability to a much larger and more complex
gathering of players... such as a game = players compared to a society = citizens
formula in terms of delineating incongruities for imposing one's disparaging rules
of interpretation such that everyone must not only use in their particular brand of
analysis... but their view of how to correct that which they interpret and define
as being less than optimal.

Some people prefer to remain as an audience and do not want to actually involve
themselves with a direct form of participation. Such a position of interest can be
accommodated so as to give them a voice of participation, nonetheless. In the game
which was played by the group which the individual was a part thereof, a period of
time for adjusting to their desire for everyone to "play by the real rules" was not
given an opportunity to be added; which could have been, and actually was, to some
extent, included by simply permitting the individual to adopt the provision of
playing by the "real rules" during their turn of acting as dealer. But this was not
the case, since they not only wanted everyone to play by the "real rules" as they
saw them, each and every hand that was being dealt no matter by whom, but that
everyone should like playing the game in this fashion and prefer it over any other
set of rules. One must wonder what the individual would have done if they had encountered
another set of printed rules arriving out of a misprint.

Modifications to the generally accepted dealership rule were permitted so long
as everyone had a potential means of winning a hand, if not the overall game, in
context, through individualized participation. This is quite unlike the process
presently used in the U.S. government when a four-year presidential term is sometimes
extended to eight years, and members of Congress and other government employees
deliberately create circumstances which validate the often publicly viewed unnecessary
need for long term occupation by a single person, group or political party... much
less having a government practicing a parental form of congressional Representation,
and the public is provided the illusion of having the "Will
of the People" formulated into law. It is a joke and a mockery which
defines the people as herd-minded culturally-branded idiots for accepting the
continuance of such a system. Clearly, a system can be set up that does not need
extended "occupational" presences in order to further the best interests for the
most, if not all, by giving everyone a participating voice.

It is of further interest to note that because there was no printed allowance or
practice for using alternative rules, such as those being practiced by the cooperative
group, the individual, very surprisingly to the rest, preferred to quit playing,
after throwing down their cards and expressing further frustration. All of us had
no idea the individual was so closed minded and insecure, as well as finding it
difficult, so to speak, to sail their ship along a winding river. There was an
evident level of bewilderment by everyone present as to the inflexibility of this
person's ability to adapt to what the rest thought were small changes, yet the
individual obviously perceived to be too unsettling for their traditional way of
playing the game. As an epilogue to this story, the individual went on to remain
at the same menial job until retiring, while all the rest pursued various skilled
and semi-skilled forms of experienced employment, according to the dictates of a
capacity of mental divergence.

→ ~ ←

With respect to rules and the overall topic of discussion, authority relies on
a codified body of laws to impose a particular perspective on the people who have
not taken the time to think beyond a given set of game playing illusions, because
authority is insecure and promotes a higher quality of insecurity on the public to
give the impression its authority is qualified to be authoritative. Under present
governing processes, a higher standard of living is commensurate with a higher
standard of expected security; which has produced an unexpected higher level of
poverty that evolves complex strategies for survival maintenance and become quite
stubbornly resistive to alleviation when previously-used, selective authoritative
methodologies are tried... and are era-specifically recognized with such labels as
Monarchy, Oligarchy, Hierarchy, etc..., though they are otherwise promoted with
labels which suggest a renouncement of such elitisms such as Communism, Democracy
and Socialism.

But many of those in authoritative positions see the same irrationalities of
presently practiced social governance that we do and long for a means of resolving
social issues which continue to plague the sole of humanity. Even if every Congress
and Parliament collectively announced that they were going to adopt a Cenocratic
form of social self-governance, the public might well be resistive to something
"new", because it has been trained to think, to react in a manner similar to a
primitive that has never publicly encountered something outside its cultural purview.
The public is a timid and fearful creature who needs to be taught how to think in
Cenocratic terms... even though it already does in different instances... it does
not realize that it does, and have not been introduced to a reflection of themselves,
their own image, their own individuality by having it named with the word "Cenocracy".
Those in positions of authority who already recognize these circumstances need
concerted assistance from the public to hold up a mirror and define the image as
being good, and that Cenocracy is not that which captures and entraps the public's
soul; like some primitives who thought that a photograph of them was tantamount to
having taken their soul away. The public must come to be shown that Cenocracy is a
much clearer image of its individual and collective self, over that of the ornamented
polished surfaces of Communism, Socialism and Democracy... irrespective of their
presumed depth, breadth and height.

The primitive cultures of present businesses, governments and religions, are
destined to become marginalized retreats of consciousness explored by a few like
so many other ideas of antiquity... though their value will be recognized, for
example, like that of:

Astrology yielding a shooting star towards Astronomy, Counseling as well as
Psychiatry.

Alchemy lighting a candle for its once novice Chemistry which came to surpass
the old master.

Prophecy's illuminations foretelling the advent of Philosophy from which Physic's
"indivisible" atom arose (and the idea of an originating "Adam" -and- Eve
shiny-eyed innocence might have been used supportively).

Simple counting advanced a tallied measure towards the development of Mathematics.

...Let us thus look into the light of our own eyes to see them as shooting stars
which have fallen as seeds to be planted on Earth, that are best nurtured by the
well-spring of a meadow called Cenocracy... that will come to supplant the jungled
deserts of Communism, Socialism and Democracy; though its form in the future will
no doubt be far removed from its present remediations of governance being sprouted.

A further exercise in perusing more of the aforementioned (unconscionable)
unbelievability is for one to consider that they may have to travel to the doorstep
of the offender(s) and seek public condemnation by an actual protest display of
picketing. Imagine having to walk in a to -and- fro peripatetic fashion outside a
perpetrator's domain with one or more signs suggesting incrimination in order to
bring attention to an incident that could have, long ago, been dealt effectively
with... and need not have had to occur in the first place if the public had been
treated with a common sense level of fairness instead of keeping or taking self-Representation
away from the people by various measures resembling a legalistic sleight of hand.
No such ridiculous protest scene should ever have to take place... It is not a point
of ridiculousness that we do engage in it, but that we are left with no other visible
option.

It is a shameful expression of a "peoples government" for the practice of an
Electoral College in the selection of a President to ever take place. The people
should be permitted to express their collective voice by having an actual and honest
free choice. The "Voiced Choice of the peoples' Will" should be as much a practice
of common sense as using a round-shaped wheel... without any politically convoluted
vicarious "Representative" distortions; like the shadows on a cave wall meant to
illustrate some imagined real world to be defended by the specifically related
superstitions of business, government and religion. It is with even deeper disgust
to acknowledge that the "Will of the People" is
the opinion of a few that is expressed as a publicly adopted illusion, as a means
of concealing the absence of a true "Voice of the People"
and used as a tool to effect particular political vote results to favor one perspective
over another— yet deep social problems continue unabated. Present democracy
is practiced as if it were just another type of gladiatorial sporting event, with
society as the arena, and many suffering by being inflicted with sustained wounds...
all under the watchful eyes of a public audience and the presumed aegis of authority
who gives the final thumbs up or thumbs down vote. What an incredibly stupid system
we have perpetuated if it is little more than than a sublimation of baser expressions
that have been "civilized" in a manner little different than putting a suit on a
great ape and describing it as exhibiting a progressively intelligent or 'smart'
appearance to be envied by others. Indeed, if the present form of Democracy is the
best we can do, humanity is headed for a prolonged "Age of Irrationality".

From a complaint to a protest is how many of us progress in our efforts towards
seeking some resolution to a perceived wrong. Some think in terms of promoting the
need for a Revolution aligned with the necessity of encouraging an armed rebellion
that advocates varying forms of anarchy, as the primary means of effecting purposeful
change in opposition to those who may appear to be disagreeably obstinate... no
matter how courteous and respectful we might be in our attempts to resolve issues.
But this is not the singularly-minded course for a Cenocracy espousing a "Peoples
Government". If we are to be viewed as an extremist and radical group, then let that
extremism be equated with the sought after development of a new form of social
self-governance like the colonial American Declaration of Independence, when it
was viewed by the reigning Authority in Britain.

There is nothing to be proud of when having to engage in violence. There is no
glory to be embraced, but a deep sadness that one or more acts of violence were
required in order for the people to have a true, representative voice. Ideally,
we Cenocrats prefer not to resort to violence in order that the people may develop
a form of social self-governance which is a maturational stage beyond the present
antiquated parental form of vicarious Representation. We want our own self-
representative voice. This can only be accomplished by a newly designed process of
Referendum specifically outlined in a new Constitution and Bill of Rights ratified
by this new process of Referendum... as determined by the public with its own
legislative branch.

At present, the usage of a "Representative" government denies the people a right
to have an actual personal Representation; in the form of bureaucratically negating
the right of the people to have a Constitutionally-mandated and guaranteed
"Voice of the People" Referendum as a standard
procedure of voting with results that can become a legislated
"Will of the People" law and not some auxiliary political component used
sporadically, whimsically and eccentrically at the behest of some politician wanting
to use a referendum to advantage some singularly personal motive. Nor do we want some
regionally applied "grass roots initiative" promoted as representing an epitomized
bold "Will of the People" act as if it were a
standardized definitive model of exceptional democracy for all of us to be arrogantly
and defiantly proud of and yet remain resistively stupid about an actual analysis
thereof... with respect to it being an intermittently used exception instead of as
a forthright Rule -of- Necessity for an actual democratic process exercised by a
public considerably more enlightened than many of their forebearers. In a truer form
of Democracy that is not as yet practiced, the collective
"Will of the People" by way of a Cenocratic process is not an exception,
it is the "Rule of the People", which is actually
described with the word Demo-cracy (People ~ Rule). Democracy must be re-defined and
have that definition printed in every single reference book, along with being taught
in every school, both public and private... but is not that which is reminiscent
of a pack of coyotes howling at the moon like those ideas which are taught about
present Democracy as an accepted and politically correct perspective.

The Traditionalists, those who believe the current design of the government is
the best and that through the accepted Amendment process, it can be "tweaked" into a
finer resonance in accord with condition-specific circumstances; will be hard-pressed
towards accepting any suggestion for improvement... since they might well react to
such proposals as if being personally affronted— like a person whose support
of a particular sports team feels attacked if someone should make a disparaging
comment about "their" team.

There are those who magnify the underlying simplistic nature of a game
into something representing a do -or- die, life -or- death, or other dichotomy
instead of seeking some mutually beneficial compromise. This is because those they
are confronted with have no interest in compromise and they are socially manipulated
into playing someone else's game; like a gun-fighter who is skilled in taunting others
into a confrontation because they live for putting as many notches on their gun handle
as they can because they have little imagination or intelligence to do otherwise.

Various forms of opposition to the introduction of a remodeled form of Democracy
is to be expected... just as there were those in America during early colonial times
who did not want to accept the adoption of an "American" government, even though
it was not initially called this and would prove to be a better "we the people" formula of social self-governance. Those who would
oppose the introductory suggestions of a Cenocracy prefer to hold on to that which
they are used to, though it may cause discomfort and although that which is being
introduced actually has a better structure of utility for them (i.e., it is more
"user friendly").

While the present Democracy in use is more user friendly than the old government
once imposed on the people, Cenocracy can be compared with a new "operating platform",
(to take a reference associated with computer software technology). But we don't want
to make the mistake of deliberately trying to force people to adopt a new platform
that requires an enormous shift in thinking as did Microsoft with its usage of Windows
8. Regardless of the platform's merits, Microsoft's approach to getting people to
use the program were the "like it or not" tactics once employed by arrogant
Aristocracies of old in which a "culture of arrogance" was exhibited as a type of
personality to which we of today might refer to as an artificialized personhood.
Microsoft's position in the industry involving a frequency of interaction with
various political venues has attracted too many of those who would use their position
in the company coupled with its worldly-placed position; as a means of projecting
haughty personal egos which have a poor practice of exhibiting a measurable level
of humility in dealing with others from different walks of life and occupation...
and they are unable to differentiate that the humility they practice on an individual
bases is substantially different from that being practiced collectively... In other
words, the stated values of a company can become mangled into offensive personal
variations when oversight is permitted to be personified and not objectified—
as a compliance standard initiated by those having written the values individually
interpreted as a generalized rule-of-thumb and not as a specified given.

...Just like members of Congress, the White-house and other government agencies
do in their individualized workplace cultures. They can not see differences between
themselves as individuals and their interactive participation in sustaining a culture
of mentality which takes on a personality of its own. The overall structure of
respectively- employed governance does not incorporate a means for those involved
to recognize the existence of any problem to be differentiated and might even be
resistive of such a claim against; particularly when someone receives a paycheck
and other benefits therefrom. Hence, not only does the public have to fight the
collective idiocy of a workplace culture, despite the presence of individual
intelligence when attempting to resolve an issue, complaint or protest, the people
have to confront an overall system which supports the mentality of those very cultures
which emerge into a collective consciousness of inexplicable rationality devoid of
a public's common sense values... which on the one hand are said to be too ignorant
to make collective decisions for itself, and yet is permitted to elect those who
are said to be more intelligent and need to Represent them. Current forms of Democracy
abound with hypocrisy.

With respect to Microsoft, even though people may be viewed in the singular while
being labeled a 'public' set against a giant, their opinions need to be respected;
lest they begin slinging disconcerting rocks as they have done against windows 8...
sometimes referred to as Microsoft's problem child. While earlier platforms were
indeed problematic, and caused mistakes due to their immaturity, they were not
representative of a teenager who instigates trouble by deliberately "being different",
backed by a supportive, protective and smiling parent armed with a repertoire of
excuses and deniability.

But please permit the usage another analogy in an attempt to explain what is
thought of as being a much deeper problem the public is confronting when trying
to get the government, an agency or agent thereof to resolve an issue. Democracy
can be described as an umbilical cord which should serve to nourish all of us by
being deeply rooted into every aspect of our lives, but instead has become a tangled
web from which is described falsified freedoms, liberty, justice and hope. It breeds
a dependency which promotes rules, regulations and requirements (i.e. laws and
beliefs...assumptions), that has created an undesirable level of co-dependency
addiction with all the associated disparities, deficiencies, and desperation—
leading to multiple kinds of deterioration.

Not only the public, but its governing authority become so addicted
they seek out increasing levels through legislation and judicial rulings without
a realization they have established a "fix-ed" ratio of supply and demand. Both
the 'suppliers' and consumers of Democracy claim that it will "fix" such and such
problem without being able to recognize that it, itself, is that which by its
present usage is the source of our problems. Hence, for example, it is difficult
for a single "customer" to get a "supplier" to get back property, particularly money
or that which is convertible to an economic advantage; when the supplier advocates
that their "business" transaction is legitimately sound based on Democratic principles
of standardized law...

...Though we public "customers" are claiming the product to be tainted, "cut"
with impurities and even poisonous to both suppler and customer... and yet the
government, an agency or agent thereof wants the public to continue being a junkie
who is receptive to its brand of narcotic-laden Democracy which permits it to
incrementally increase its profits from the public, in various 'lawful' tactics,
like taking candy from a baby that is left to whine and cry itself to a soiled sleep...
because the "parent" government and governing processes are too drugged themselves
to think or move outside the box of the predicament they help to construct, reinforce,
and maintain. It is indeed frustrating in attempting to have a rational conversation
with someone whose values of right and wrong are dedicated to a preservation of what
can be described as a narcotic- driven perspective that they are totally oblivious
of, like an intoxicated person denying they are drunk and insist upon driving. Yet
some of us try, with great patience and perseverance, nonetheless.

It is difficult to get a problem resolved which was caused by a situation created
by an addiction that is pedaled by a supplier who is addicted to the product themselves;
and may want to claim one or more people are confused, mistaken or harbor some other
inability to comprehend as well abide by the story-telling "High" of the supplier.
The present formula of Democracy is a concoction which produces a habit that those
in authority can become more addicted to than the general consuming public... like
the manufacturer and distributor of a narcotic... democracy, like religion and some
businesses, are supplied to the public as a drug they say we must have and can't
live well without.

Clearly, there is need of a socially wide-spread rehabilitation program called
Cenocracy, which will help both the public and its suppliers kick the bad
habits associated with the present formula of Democracy... which advocates self-immolating
activities of dependency instead of self-sufficiency. The application of such a
program will no doubt be reacted to like any addict subjected to that which is meant
to remove a debilitating addiction that they do not recognize and will claim as
being otherwise in order to preserve that which they are most familiar with. Varying
methods, manners and manipulations might well be used as rationalization by those
wanting to sustain their role in the chain of manufacturing, supplying, as well as
usage. Any and all may want to minimize the analogy of addiction by associating
Democracy with an acceptable "high" such as drinking coffee, the "buzz" of temperate
alcoholic beverage consumption, or various other expressions meant to evoke a parallel
with maturity, intelligence and "being in control", such as "reaching a plateau",
exhilaration, nirvana, spirituality, eureka, etc... While forms of armed Revolution
are, in effect, a "cold turkey" program for releasing individuals from a self-destructive
addiction, such a program advocacy must be a last resort attempt. And though some
may say that Cenocracy is a substitute form of drug, it nonetheless provides the
user with a conscious acknowledgment of its value and does not need to rely on
false hope, delusion or superstition wrought and tethered to destructive traditions
that those addicted to will surely want to defend as a means of maintaining their
present intoxication designed by hallucinatory levels of illusion.

While the above analogy is instructive, it is a metaphor not meant to be taken
so literally that no other comparison is made for an extended useful application
of imagination to assist us in achieving a greater vista. As such, it is necessary
to point out that Democracy has been a good investment because it has helped us to
manufacture enormous benefits which have exceeded earlier designs of governance.
Despite the many misgivings many of us may want to share, we might also agree
that things do not have to be this way. There is room for improvement on our present
form of government. And for those who would want to suggest a complete rebuild in
our governing structure is needed, few might actually be able to offer a comprehensive
blue-print. If you think that a total rebuild is needed, by all means, let us all
know how this is to be accomplished, which should included a detailed breakdown of
cost and resource allocation. You will also need to submit who is to do what and why
they are so chosen. Though you may have commendable ideas, the rest of us can't read
your mind. Give us at least a hint of your plan even if it is written on a paper
napkin, the margin of a book, or some scrap of paper like that torn off a paper bag.
Realistically, whereas we might focus on one or a few particular circumstances in
providing some suggestion for improvement, our views are either a specialized generality
or a generalized specialty and not one of omniscience. It is doubtful that any
one of us has all the answers for all concerns... including the naive and foolish
who lean towards the suggestion that "THE" answer to all problems is to eliminate
humanity, all life, or all of existence.

Let us again say that Democracy has been a good, if not a great investment, and
yet has resulted in producing problems created by perpetrating and perpetuating
illusions like hearing one's voice in an echo (false representation), one's "conscious
self" in a shadow (false personification in a government), and one's unrealized
potential achievement in a store window (false hope based on illusion). It is a
three-alloy amalgamation created by the fusion of business, government and religion
that have built up an alliance steeped in an ages-old alchemy; which must be replaced
with a more effectual chemistry sporting a different philosophy of social physics...
utilizing a new algorithm of investment calculation that all may have stock in, from
which will evolve the language of a more fulfilling future dimension of length,
breadth, depth and its corollaries, as opposed to the constraining socially abstracted
contrasts experienced today.

Many people are soured by what might be described as festering social wounds
that are either not treated or not treated well enough. Indeed, it is difficult for
a person, much less the whole of a country to march to the beat of any drummer when
its pace towards a better future is slowed and even halted at times by aches and
pains of grievances for which the government, an agency, or agent thereof will
not adequately re-dress. The people do not need another crutch or stretcher. And
they do not want to be met with an attitude of obstinance, abandonment or ostracism
in circumstances which are designed to force them to accept a dependent role. It
is easy to force someone to comply with one's directives when they are subjected
to circumstances which are designed, knowingly or unknowingly, to engage in varying
forms of promotion (reward) persecution (shaming), or punishment (impediment to
or denial of services), in defense thereof.

→ ~ ←

And before continuing it is necessary to distinguish when someone is speaking
from a philosophical perspective and not to use the associated comments as if they
were some definitive expression of desired application... even if the writer or
speaker does not begin a particular topic example with the phrase "philosophically
speaking".

Musefulness, thought experiments, knee-jerked responses, "out of the blue"
illustrations, etc., are too often misconstrued as if that being rendered were a
dyed-in-the-wool belief or concluded factuality instead of a supposition of generalities
presented amongst those who might be thought to have a means of thinking outside
conventional lines of consideration; without someone being committed to some
conventionalized social asylum of deviancy after being convicted of engaging in
some form of an illegality, immorality, insanity or other intellectual impropriety
as if in claiming such, another is somehow to be advantaged in a position of unspoken
mental chess game in which they apply their own personal rules.

Such things are transparently conjectural and can thus be referred to as
conjectural transparencies... like so many comments are in fact rendered
in different moments of social discourse.

In a mood of philosophizing, one should not expect oneself or another to present
a finger-pointed-to definitive, since one perceptual vantage point requires letting
out the string of one's mental kite, and the other requires tethering it in. It is
sometimes difficult to reign in a kite on a windy day... even if one or more others
can not "see", nor feel nor hear the wind or some semblance thereof. Some prefer to
let their kite soar to never before reached heights when a wind of opportunity
presents itself, though one or more others nearby may have no perception thereof.

While some prefer to ignore winds altogether, or decide not to try to fly a kite
in the presence of too many public utility poles, and yet others can even imagine
themselves riding aboard the kite, and then some,... metaphorically speaking of
course... have you ever tried flying a kite at night with a flashlight attached to
it, or are you more interested in swinging on stars, rowing a boat down a stream
or else-wise just singing a ditty thereof? And don't be surprise if you discover
that those who once flew a kite alongside you, have placed their kite in a forgotten
umbrella rack... but can be retrieved to be flown again.

→ ~ ←

For example, if the usage of a biblical story can be offered as an allegory and
rendered without evoking spiteful crimination, and not taken as a confession of
a particular religious faith, one way or another, the illustration of Peter being
ostracized from a community which forced him to "live out a social death" in a cave,
might be of value to some readers when applied to the present context. Whereas the
actual prologue (reasons) for his assumed ostracism are not told, the era-specific
occurrence must be taken into consideration of a constructed inference of the tale
as told from the epilogue; in which he was "reborn" into the member-only social
sphere by being thrice-told to come out by someone who can be said to have been, in
many respects, an early social worker and reformer whose "outside the box" grasp
of the situation understood that existence within a desert community set apart from
distantly placed other closely knit communities... presented most people with an
unavoidable, do -or- die, life -or- death circumstance.

Conformity and mediocrity was and is the general rule of thumb... However, one's
oddity, "difference" or esotericism can be defined as having some applicable social
merit... like entertainment or story-telling, resource scrounger, quick study
capability, comforter/consoler, strategist/adviser, problem solver/idea conjurer,
domestics preparation, etc... It doesn't take a genius to foretell one's fate in
a closed social order in which they are 'bucking the system'. By bucking too hard,
if you are not spurred, corralled or made to fend for yourself, you may be totally
incapacitated by those who believe such an act is for the good of the system. However,
today, Jesus might well say: "Forgive them not oh Lord, for they know exactly what
they are doing and they are doing it deliberately."

While Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha and other religious figures as well as non-religious
followers saw the realities beyond the social perceptions of their day and age,
and asked others in one way or another to "see the light" beyond their own fingertips
and constraints of mind imposed on them from the governing authority they were exposed
to and forced to abide with; most of their followers only pretend a similarity
of individualized perception. They indulge in constructing a believing member-only
social box within which no believer is supposed to look too long or too far beyond,
much less live outside of... and are therefore subjected to blinders that those who
have assumed control of the box design, lead around in circles with a (three-part)
carrot attached- to a string attached- to a pole. Present Democracy is such a box
that provides those within some assurance of survival and salvation and personal
redemption so long as they remain close to it... like an umbilical cord. But it is
an umbilical cord attached to a parental figure who is not taking care of their own
health and thus effects the development of those made dependent on it.

Many people are skeptical, hesitant and even deadly fearful of change, even to
the point of killing those and that which appears to be the cause of their fear...
which in actuality, may well be only themselves. No less, in comparison to a state
of Democracy, there are those who would like to return to a Monarchy, such as in
Britain; while others think it would be best for their country to be rid of
the whole monarchial state of observance and practice, even though it is greatly
diminished from days of 'yore' (before- past). And yet, there too is no National
(Cenocratic) Referendum process taking place in Britain which permits the public
to have a true self-representative voice. Neither do the people have their own
Legislative Branch. Such absences might well describe that the people of Britain
also need a Revolution in their political process. In addition, we might even say
that a Cenocracy is indeed overdue throughout the world, though Switzerland practices
what may be viewed a simplistic model called 'Direct Democracy'.

We do not want to be viewed as having a chip on our shoulders to the extent of
being ready, willing and able to pursue a fight at the drop of a hat, word, or gesture.
Each of us must move beyond our anger, frustration and our "it's a shame" labeling
for occurrences we perceive as being unnecessary and could be dealt with more effectively,
if the people themselves had the power to enact needed legislation as an expression
of the Peoples' Will. However, instead, many seek some level of solace by congregating
amongst those who will provide sympathy and empathy... and simply provide the
acknowledgment that what we are perceiving is a reality perceived by one or more others.
But walking or marching down a street carrying banners and slogans most often results
in little effective change. Though it may well make those involved feel empowered,
that they are "doing something", no real change takes place on either a regional
or national level.

We can not march nor "occupy" a public venue or even engage in a "sit in", as
it used to be called, and expect to be respected by the public if the action appears
to be disrespectful and is perceived to be a violation of another's rights, regardless
if you feel you have been treated as such.

We can not make demands, threats nor ultimatums which backs someone up against
a wall. We do not want to use force, manipulation or intimidation to get others
to assist us. It is a primitive's type of magical thinking which imagines a self-devised
conclusion that "Everyone knows" why you are doing what you are engaged in. It is
ridiculous to think that the whole of the public sees and defines things as you do
just because you are surrounded by a hundred or so similarly-minded others chanting
some slogan in unison. Just because fifty thousand people are parroting each other's
expressions on behalf of one sports team doesn't mean everyone is doing so in the
nation, much less the same stadium. Proximity and similarity does not necessarily
equate with confluence.

First and foremost we must acknowledge and be acknowledged for engaging in non-violent
activities to bring about a purposeful re-design of the current governing system.

We do not want authority to be against us, we want all authority to be on our side.

We want to be seen as those who are sincerely attempting to use the processes of
the current system to advantage all of us in making a contribution towards an
improvement.

We must use every single form of communication to tell the public what a Cenocracy
is and why we believe it is better than the current form of Democracy... which includes
forestalling the fears, reticence and rejection which accompanies the introduction
of something new— by revealing that "Cenocracy" can well be viewed as a New
Democracy (Cenodemocracy). We want to take the old form and remold it into something
better. Granted it too will not be perfect because it is doubtful imperfect beings
can create perfection, but they can make viable improvements to imperfect systems.

Everyone must be advised that we are not trying to hurt anyone, but changes in
a government just like changes in how a business or religion is to operate, can well
mean shifts in the placement and positions individuals presently occupy.

Our intentions must be made clear, even if our methods of attempting to instill
a Cenocracy on behalf of everyone are initially amateurish. Even after a Peoples
Legislative Branch becomes a reality there will be a significant learning curb.
Cenocracy is in a fledgling stage of development. It must be given time to mature
and not ravaged on by vultures wanting to take advantage of its early vulnerabilities.

We can not assume that our thoughts, feelings, views and intentions will automatically
be dispersed by some sort of osmosis; like a type of silent dog whistle that can only
be heard by humans... akin to a specialized "grapevine" word-of-mouth backyard gossip
system. Some people do not watch TV, listen to a radio, read a newspaper or browse
through magazines. Many people exist in isolated forms of lives even if they walk
amongst hundreds each day on their way to and from work. The voice of Cenocracy must
reach everyone no matter what personal barrier is in place. Some people need to be
breast fed (heart to heart, personally relevant discussions), spoon fed
(slowly and routinely), or provided a free sample (particular offering based on
ambiance).

We must take advantage of every legal means available to bring about a constructive
re-design of the governing system. This will entail the adoption of our own lobbying
formula in order to educate both the public and authority of our desires, our intentions,
and the mode of executing our methodology. We want to be up-front because this will
help to establish a greater legitimacy of action, irrespective if our initial efforts
will be humorously viewed, retrospectively, as having been naively simplistic.

We are foraging a new path; no doubt mistakes and stumblings will be made in our
first steps. We will rethink old ideas and if necessary, discard those which do not
meet newly developed standards for achieving and then practicing our acquired goals.
And yes, though we may have our personal complaints, we must not permit them to keep
us from a unified goal. Likewise, we may well experience moments of anger and
frustration with current authority and the processed procedures they use, but we
must follow through by attempting to resolve our differences within set "codified"
parameters that they request us to take... though we may perceive it as little more
than a hoop-jumping routine. We will take the time and catalogue our efforts to
show whether or not they resulted in little but an obstinance meant to fatigue and
dissolve our intent.

We will need to be able to provide documented evidence to substantiate that we
did indeed attempt to "play the established game" as defined by current political
rules... in the event that we are left with nothing to do but effect an armed Rebellion
in a Declaration For Greater Independence. It is the same era-specific route which
early American Colonists took when attempting to get a redress of grievances from
a governing system of authority who wanted nothing else but for everyone to be
subservient with their views. Imagine where we of the present might be if the Colonists
decided to give into those who thought they were their betters instead of effecting
a call to arms in order to assert their rights to developing a form of self-rule
according to the perspective of those living in the past... that has now shown
itself to be less than that which we desire for ourselves today.

However, it should be emphasized that a Cenocratic form of social self-governance
is not "the" answer to all the many different complaints encompassing the different
ways of life in a vast nation, just as the current form of Democracy lacks this
ability as well. But the current form of Democracy is out-dated and needs to be
sorely revised. Both Cenocratic and Democratic forms of government can only provide
a better means of addressing complaints if the processes are used well. Present
Democracy is not used well and it will never be unless it is substantially altered
to accept a new vision of what is meant by a "Peoples Government."

The present form of government is wholly inadequate for a true "peoples" government
when its practiced structure minimizes and often negates the
"Will of the People" from having a means of expressing its concerted
opinion without some vicarious, or otherwise substituted representation thereof.
Indeed, even when the U.S. Presidential oath is taken does the nation as a whole
little realize that the person elected is swearing to uphold a Constitution effected
by the "Will of the People" of past eras,
and not the Will established by those of us living in the present... because a
Congressionally mandated Referendum process involving a more effectual complaint
forum for discussion is discredited. Why, we must ask, is Authority so afraid of
the "Will of the People" of the present it will
do anything it can to wrest and manipulate control into the hands of a few who must
promote the continued illusion of so many social self-governing falsehoods?

Here is the U.S. Presidential oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It is a particularly shallow oath. It's lack of depth evinces a superficial
appreciation and practice of a real OF, BY, and FOR the people democracy. It mentions
the Presidential office, the Constitution, and the United States. But it does not
explicitly mention the people. Whereas some might want to argue the people are
implied, this "implication" displaces the people into the position of an after-thought...
into some vague recollection. The people should not be an implication, they are
THE single most important element and should be respected by being named.
The Office of the President, the Constitution, and the United States belong to
the people, and not vice versa. They have a right to be personally acknowledged
as the true proprietors of the United States, the Constitution, and the Presidential
Office. The people are not a shadow, are not an echo, are not an entity which can
not be named because of some superstitious philosophy evincing a Fairy Tale like
Rumpelstiltskin and that some religious observance might ludicrously adopt as a
means of suggesting its own greatness because of. The people are not that which is
owned, but are in fact the owners who can and want to speak for themselves through
a Cenocratic Formula of governance. The oath of the highest office in the land is
that of an employee of the people and should, at the very least, recognize its boss
by publicly naming them. Hard working people deserve to be recognized as being of
primary importance and not be slighted by being nameless... like some shadowy
figure standing in the background so as not to detract from some assumed "chosen
one" intimation which distorts an underlying messianic or megalomaniac insinuation
of self-importance.

We The People have a name just as we have a voice and are fated to become fully
recognized as the preeminent governing Will guaranteed by a Cenocracy
(New Government). All governments will be forced to accept the people as a collective
identity with a viable passport to a better future. It is a Will that shall Tell
the Tale of a public's arrow shot true, as a Declaration for Greater Independence!
(Mentioned as a reference to William Tell who shot an arrow off of his Son's head
to voice his opinion against the directive of Authority.)

At present, the people do not have a Cenocratic means of Self-Representation...
it is forced to accept a vicarious form of Representation that often is out-of-touch
with the actual collective Will of the People and makes guesses based on spurious
polls and gut-felt assumptions.

It is a Will that is denied a full Citizenship,
denied Individuality, and denied and actual right to Vote on its own behalf, without
being subjected to some political machination of reigning authority.

In effect, the collective will of the people is denied its own personhood, its
own incorporation and its own stock-market designation as a standard of social
self-governance and not as an auxiliary component of infrequent permissibility.

The Presidential Oath describes a serious and pervasively practiced short-coming
that needs to be rectified. Instead of the Presidential Office being used to preserve,
protect and defend a Constitution, it should, for example, be stated thusly:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my Ability; preserve, protect and defend the people's right to have a
government which best befits their collective consciousness expressed in a collective
voice through a Referendum whose results can be mandated into a law as a
Constitutionized Representation of their desire for developing a better United
States in partnership with a global community.”

The Presidential Office, the Constitution and the United States are nothing
without the people. We need to not only begin thinking WAY outside our enclosed,
segregationist boxes of tradition, but begin a practice thereof by altering the
wording of oaths, pledges, and declarations to be reflected in our laws and social
practices. If the public is to grow up as an expressed governing self of maturity,
then the government should practice such a maturity as a preeminent role model.
Let it lead with the leadership of a true leader.

If grocery stores and other businesses can display a respectful acknowledgment
and humility towards senior citizens, handicapped persons and pregnant women by
providing particularlized parking spaces as an oath of a stated business practice;
at the very least the President of the United States can exhibit a respectful
acknowledgment of all the Nations' peoples by providing a particularized comment
thereof and there-for... if for nothing else, than to thank the public for the
privilege of being able to serve it. Whereas the Person elected to the Presidency
is named a President, and those elected to Congress are at least referred to as
Members of Congress, the people are unduly slighted when they are not as such
individually acknowledged in the Oath taken by the President. In fact, all government
oaths should be provisioned with a recognition of the people. This is an oversight
that needs to be remedied.

For example, here is the Presidential oath refashioned to individually include
the people that, for the most part, uses the same formula but that may not raise
the eyebrows of some traditionalists, even though it will have a great impact on
the perception and practice of politics and governance:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the Citizens of the United States.”

While some may prefer to use the word "Citizens", the usage of the word "Peoples"
has merit, since many believe in the ways and means of the United States but are
as yet not a citizen. Whereas, we could use the phrase "Citizens and supportive
Peoples" as a useful concession to include both. In any respect, the oath must be
changed to effect a greater comprehension of the present reality and not continue
an expression of an antiquated mentality the people have grown out of.

And it should be fully noted that the protection and defense of the citizens
very much includes a Bill -of- Rights that was initially omitted from the U.S.
Constitution but were an essential inclusion in order to protect and defend the
people from arbitrary acts of the Federal government, and later adopted as a necessary
provision for the people against arbitrary acts of State governments. As presently
practiced, the U.S. Presidential oath places the Constitution and the people in
a secondary position, thus rendering a needed change as:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully preserve,
protect, as well as defend the Constitution and the Bill -of- Rights of the Citizens
of the United States... and will to the best of my Ability, execute the Office of
President of the United States on their behalf.”

Without an alteration in the Presidential Oath, the people remain a superficial
adjunct of consideration. Any lawyer who truly represents the people would not stand
for such a specious oath. The people can not expect the Supreme Court to protect
the Rights of the People when it is their job to protect the Rights of the Constitution...
and all its short comings... The Constitution, the Bill -of- Rights, and the Presidential
office mean nothing without the people. To not mention the People and their Rights
is to disavow their singular and collective importance.

A new Presidential oath is needed just like the people need a new government...
a Cenocracy. The future must not continue from its present footing or else more
disharmony will ensue as the population increases with little change in the standard
of Equality that ensures a more even redistribution and redefinition of all wealth
to enhance everyone's life.

Philosophically speaking, if we were to remove all the people of the United
States and replace them with Africans, Asians, or some other generalized but
selective group, it is rather questionable that the "New Americans" would retain
the three elements (Presidential Office, Constitution, United States) as we now
presently know them. Yes, they might well evolve into some greater practice of
democracy, or they could just as well change into using a form of governance more
in line with some past practice. The wording in documents would likely change, and
with them their meaning. However, the same could be true for any country.

For example, if all the people of Britain were replaced with Americans, would
the country retain its present laws or would they change because Americans collectively
espouse a different type of consciousness regardless of where they might be placed?
How about replacing all the Russian peoples with Japanese? Or Mexicans with Germans?
Or, stated rather comically, the people of Florida with Eskimos, the people of India
with Californians, the peoples of the Middle East with Icelanders, Americans with
the Peoples of the Middle East, the peoples of Hawaii with Danes, males with females
in all sports, etc... or the reverse thereof? Is the presumed "American", Japanese,
Russian, Icelandic, Middle Eastern, Italian, Mexican, etc., consciousness, like
all governing consciousnesses the world over in that they are mere rationalities
fashioned into a culture-specific conveyor belt system representing the prevailing
economics in use... without which the governing consciousness may diminish, divert
to something else, or die?

While one person or a small group might adopt and adapt to the prevailing laws
practiced in a given location, what if an entire people were replaced by those who
had practiced a different perspective? Is one's perspective dependent solely on
the place they inhabit, or can it be enlarged to accommodate concerns and considerations
of multiple places and peoples? If there is a Universality in that we are all a type
of species, does this entail a basic commonality of consciousness which can be used
to develop a Universal set of laws? With respect to the idea of a political consciousness
as described by the social governance adopted by a group-culture (in contrast to
one's individualized views not typically described as a "personalized culture"),
how is a change in governance to take place unless there is a change in the culture
without the use of a Revolution? Indeed, a change in governance is effected by a
cultural revolution which may occur by way of changes in technology, communication,
education standards, economics, etc..., whether good or bad for the people. And it
can also occur by someone in a political office engaged in nefarious activities
to effect conditions for ulterior motives. But such activities often require the
complicity of numerous like-minded individuals whose personal interests are valued
over and above the needs of the public. Yet, electing a single person to an office
does not typically alter anything substantially. One person has difficulty making
changes if there are not particular others who support them. Simply supporting a
single person for a given office of leadership, if the person is little more than
an office manager, (a keeper of the flame and not a path finder), is a waste of a
vote.

While we Cenocrats have no stated interest in removing anyone from a government
job, a different political process might well eventually result in their removal,
as well as define term/employment limits, pay, cost of living allowance, health
insurance coverage, etc. Likewise, in seeking the adoption of a Cenocracy, we have
no real desire, at present, to promote any candidate... and therefore do not need
to register ourselves as a typical political party. Whereby, we have initially begun
to establish the first of the three Cenocratic goals:

Establish a National (if not International) Cenocratic Government Party.

Establish a National (if not International) Cenocratic-styled Referendum Process.

Establish a National (if not International) Cenocratic Peoples Legislative Branch.

If anyone wants to support us, then let it be right alongside us. No visible
candidate offers us any incentive to do otherwise. We not only need to hear them
speak of a Cenocracy, but need to know what they are going to attempt to do is make
a Cenocracy a reality. Don't promise anything you can't realistically deliver. We
have enough of that nonsense already.

A Cenocracy offers the people a means of not only addressing complaints, but
bringing them to public attention if the character of the complaint warrants such...
of if the complainant (complaintant) so desires it because they feel those elected
to make a determination there of in one way or another, are, in their perspective,
without the necessary acumen. In addition, the complaint can be offered up for public
discussion that can be followed by a Referendum. If the Referendum shows a public
disfavorableness, the complaint can be presented for additional discussion and
another Referendum at a later date. If the Referendum shows a favorability amongst
the people, the acceptance of such can be sent to Congress for approval and, where
needed, an appropriate level of funding. If the Referendum is voted against by both
the Congress and White House, it can still become a law by way of the Will of the
People. The people are old enough, wise enough, intelligent enough and experienced
enough to make decisions on their own without some go-between who acts like a parental
or overseer figure. To those elected Representatives who think otherwise, then they
would never have been elected if it weren't for these presumed "ignorant masses"
as some might want to disparage us as a means of posturing their own ego.

The complaint and referendum process will be handled by a Peoples Legislative
Branch and selected by way of the procedure outlined on this page:
The Cenocratic Formula

A Cenocracy must make every attempt to pursue a peaceful means of contributing
to governmental reforms on behalf of the people who are its stewards. We can always
resort to violence which involves destruction and/or death and follow such acts
with a veritable zoo of rationalizations used as justification. Such acts must be
viewed in abhorrence and seen only as a last resort when all other efforts have
been exhausted. However, they are not necessarily needed if reform ideas are described
in ways that can be easily understood by both the public and social authority alike.
A reform process such as that being advocated by a Cenocracy, is an educational
process. Both the public and social authority will be in need of a Cenocratic
education that will no doubt be modified as we pursue a definitive application by
way of increased resource attributions by those who identify the need for reforms
with efforts to be complemented by those who will contribute their own creativity,
genius and originality of thought with a sincere and outlined intent. The idea of
a Cenocratic form of government is growing along a path towards a maturity which
may well experience growing pains and on occasion, tripping on its own shoe laces
from time to time as it acquires the skill to tie its own shoes. Old ideas are being
supplanted by better ones, but the primary ideal of a Cenocracy remains intact.
Cenocracy is coming. If not today, then tomorrow.If not tomorrow, then the next.
Incrementally if need be, or all at once if necessary. There is no way to stop a
Declaration For Greater Independence.

However, there is no definitive guarantee that a Cenocratic form of government
will provide us with a better life. Like any Democracy, Socialism, Communism or
otherwise, it will be a practice... a gamble, but one which resides on a firmer
foundation like a more stable computer platform. It is an idea promoting the realization
of a greater promise, a type of hope superseding that envisioned by the forefathers
of Democracy for a greater future to be realized by the whole of humanity and not
a select few who influence the direction of policy making towards accomplishing
their self-centered objectives which views the public as a utility to accomplish
their personal goals.

Yet, no matter what form of government is used, it can not protect us from bad
policy decisions or a public that will not enforce its right to be collectively
heard and have their concerted opinion legislated into law. Whereas one might think
that after thousands of years humanity would be able to develop a form of government
to supersede all past forms, we are still confronted by recurring politically motivated
stupidity. Even though a social self-governance formula can provide us with guidelines
towards not repeating past mistakes, the guidelines do not protect us from the ignorance
of those who are in a position to alter the guidelines according to their self-centered
inclinations. Such people will use any means at their disposal at effecting desired
changes and many of the public might well go along because such actions are a
vicarious means by which they too make changes according to personal desires. They
simply like to exercise control or at least give themselves and others the illusion
thereof.

While literature is replete with intelligence and wisdom, it is not necessarily
transferred from one generation to the next nor given any greater expression in one
race, ethnic group, gender or even age... though recurring problems amongst a given
people lead us to consider there are otherwise exceptions to this perception. The
transference of intelligence, wisdom, insight, magnanimity, altruism, generosity,
sincerity, courage, consideration and the like, is made more difficult by those who
cling to out-moded forms of survival variously represented via business, government
and religious models which help to perpetrate social conditions from which spring
the recurrence of similar problems generation after generation.

The public is suffused from the day each of us is born by repeated ignorance
inherently used by antiquated models of perception which requires us to pay some
form of homage in one fashion or another; all of which exhibit their own means and
methods of extracting payment called tithing, taxes or otherwise. Hence, it is not
too difficult to appreciate the recurrence of so much nonsense being exuded in every
human culture but are so much of a culture that the problems created by such models
are overlooked or rationalized into some fatalistic inevitability or seen as a
rightfully earned punishment. But those of us recognizing the many faults, failings,
and seemingly fatalistic endeavors, nonetheless want to attempt to make improvements.

Those of us with a Cenocratic perspective are old and young alike, arising from
different cultures and different walks of life. Like so many others, we too acknowledge
and point out observations we think need to be addressed by way of an altered social
self-governing policy that seems wholly irresponsible in addressing what we perceive
to be an obvious wrong. Granted, on occasion, our interpretations of a given situation
are based on a misunderstanding resulting in what can be termed a knee-jerk or
impulsive reaction that is emotionally charged. And we are well aware that if such
is adopted by a group as the sole means of self-motivation, a lynch mob mentality
becomes a pervasive aura that may result in a form of protest suggesting the wailing
of an infant... resulting in little or nothing being accomplished.

We also understand that not every situation has a ready-made answer for solving
all issues; not least of which is because some problems are not understood. Some
answers in fact may produce even greater problems that are not recognized until some
future moment. As such, in short, it is very naive to think that a particular governing
structure, or those using any such structure, are automatically endowed with some
tool chest of answers for every situation. No business plan, no government structure,
no religious model has the means of predicting all possible future scenarios that
we might be faced with. Yet, inasmuch as most of us would heartedly agree at the
existence of such limitations, many of us would not be so quick as to identify the
presence of limitations in that which we utilize, be it a business formula, government
structure, or religious doctrine. While we may disagree with a singular point or
another, few might want to call for a re-formulization, re-structuring, or "reveal"-ation
(revelation) for the purpose of a concerted change for something presumably better.
Humanity is predisposed to a life of habituation. It doesn't like change... though
many of us realize that change can provide monumental benefits.

Whereas some can see the faults of a government based on some imposed limitation
brought about by its structure, thereby promoting the insistence by some to call for
greater freedoms suggested by a Democratic process; those of us living under the
endorsement of a democracy know that Democracy can be expressed in different
ways. For example, in America, while the "democratic process" professes a government
that is Of, By and For the people, the actual "voice" of the people is muted through
such actions as:

The usage of an Electoral College in the selection of a President.

The people are not permitted to choose Supreme Court Judges though they must
abide by their rulings.

Methods of government sanctioned "petition the government" standards do not
ensure legislative discussion or response, regardless of how many sign the petition.
There is no cited rule-of-thumb to distinguish how a petition is to be addressed
and why such a particular account was put into effect.

There is no Congressionally mandated, automatically used, without a hoop-jumping
process, Peoples Referendum to address issues concerning the whole of the society.

Congress, and not the people are permitted to determine salaries, benefits and
term/employment limits of government workers.

The people do not have their own Legislative Branch to directly initiate, effect
and vote on legislation.

etc...

The people of 1700's America and France declared an Independence from their oppressive
governments because of limitations imposed on them. Each of them developed their own
form of democracy as a reaction to the circumstances peculiar to their situation.
And while the people did and still do enjoy acquired freedoms, the peoples of these
countries and elsewhere know that their governments are only as good as the wisdom,
intelligence and experience of those placed in a position of governing in accord
with policied guidelines. The greater the collective wisdom, intelligence and experience,
the greater will be the government. But only if the larger populace can recognize
such wisdom, intelligence and experience as a benefit. If either the leadership or
the public fall short of the larger ideal, society suffers. A suffering society is
a reflection that either the people or/and the political leadership lack the necessary
wisdom, intelligence and experience to improve its conditions. It thus behooves a
government to be designed in accordance with this principle and the people to support
such a change: Because it is a means by which the greatest amount of wisdom,
intelligence and experience can be acquired and utilized.

But present government structures do not permit this. Instead, they retain an
expression of relying on the judgments of a select few that are laughably defined
as the "Will of the People" by those claiming
some "Representative" over-seer alliance like some pseudo-minded religious "chosen
one". Decidedly, a clear and distinct separation of church and state has not been
achieved when Representatives still harbor a view of elitism akin to some religious
model of ordained directive, where their judgment is interpreted as being of paramount
importance due to some envisaged over-valued egotistic sentiment. Such sentiments,
whether openly voiced or covertly expressed through regulations legislated by a
consciousness of nonsense, very often lead to public protestations.

Governments are changed by way of Revolution because those in the controlling
positions of a government refuse to accommodate the requests for change by the
people who want a hands-on greater voice in governing affairs; after being subjected
to Executive, Legislative and Judicial acts that enforce recurring detrimental social
functions. Throughout history, each time a new government is effected, the people
have achieved a greater voice. Those countries which experience frequent Revolutions
are because the newly empowered government begins to limit the participation of the
people as the people themselves think to define and express such a participation.
Such is the case with all present governments. Therefore, imposed limitation, which
denies self-expression in terms defined by the people themselves, and is not re-defined
in accordance with the perceptions of those in governing positions or their intellectual
and financial supporters, is a precursor to Revolution. Such is the case before the
peoples of the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere. Such is the case to Call
for the Declaration of Greater Independence. It is a Revolution in the making that
was and is inevitable so that the people can achieve a greater voice in their own
social self-governance.

The Peoples of the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere have enjoyed more
freedoms brought about by a greater participation of the people themselves. The
governing structures are a result of the peoples participation. While they are not
perfect, they are better than that which preceded them. Such is the case today.
The present governing structures must make way for a greater participation of the
people which will result in a re-designed governing structure which seeks to advantage
itself of the greatest participation in order that it may prosper by way of a
greater collective of wisdom, intelligence and experience. Necessarily so, it will
be like the introduction of a wide-spread education program addressing a form of
illiteracy which has for too long subjugated the populace to a form of ignorance
commensurate, in modern terms, with the illiteracy shared by a communal slave
mentality that was born into servitude. And such a process will "up the ante" in
expectation for the common citizen to look beyond the very many intellectual
superstitions which are contrived by way of supposition due to a lack of wisdom,
education and experience. All present businesses, governments and religions breed
their own forms of public servitude. It is a slave mentality not yet recognized,
but once it is, a world revolution will unfold... unless the majority prefers their
lives to be lived like this as did others in past centuries.

Participation by the public in its own social governing process will persuasively
argue for and readily insist that the ordinary citizen acquire a more comprehensive
appreciation of where their country and the whole of the human species has been,
where it is, and in what direction it must go. In as much as present Representation
will not in the beginning be totally dismissed into irrelevancy, such Representatives
will be forced to acquire a far greater level of wisdom, intelligence and experience
or find themselves sitting in some legislative corner wearing a dunce cap because
their acumen will fall short of that embodied by the collective throng. Eventually,
the present Representative model of Democracy will be relegated into obsolescence
because the practiced model of social self-governance will ensure that the greatest
level of collective wisdom, intelligence and experience will be skillfully applied
to address social concerns. This is what the people want and this is what we must
have... by force if necessary.

Whereas we might hope to persuade the present government leadership to arrive
at the same perceptions and conclusions we have; if history is not but a rule-of-thumb
gauge of recurring human behavior under similar circumstances: then it shows that
governments do not readily change unless there are mass protests. Though we prefer
the pacifist stride, we know that our cause is too just to leave this view as the
sole watchword of our intentions, abilities and resolute affinities to set into
motion that which will bring about a means of enacting a form of social self-governance
that is an obvious improvement over that presently used. In other words, although
we prefer the route of peace, if we are left with little else, than an armed revolution
will ensue.

Statements of historical facts are not threats. They are intent on showing a
statistical probability of occurrence based on a willful exercise and are not
intimations about an emotional exuberance that becomes reactionary and creates
needless mayhem, injury and destruction. Nor is it an account of premeditated violence
as a necessary addendum that uses an unleashed social protest moment to conceal
some obliged hidden agenda such as committing assault and battery as a distorted
image of unexpressed aggression or rage. Is is a comment about a viable possibility
which flirts with a high probability but is not inevitably promiscuous in terms of
violent thought and deed. History shows us this has happened before during the American,
French and Russian Revolutions, to name but three. To threaten is frequently used
as a successive attempt to scare, then to frighten, and then to create some level
of panic. We have no desire nor need to engage in such puerile antics. We are not
terrorists using some religious doctrine to profess a presumed God-ordained
righteousness in order to carry out and mask wanton deeds of personal 'evility'.
Decisive government change can occur by respectful, conciliatory, and purposefully
agreeable terms.

Throughout history, changes in business, government and religion were brought
about by increased self-representation of the people. In all historical cases where
a business, government or religions did not heed the request of the people for a
greater self-representation, a protest, riot or revolution was effected. Be it
passive, violent or inter-mediary, we will have our Cenocracy or there will be a
revolution unlike that yet seen in history... though similarities to others having
occurred in the past might be offered in comparison.

By contract, by treaty, by charter, by deed, by constitution, by bill, by fashion,
by defection and by numerous other expressions of attempting to assuage disaffections,
disillusionment, dissatisfaction, and overall distrust with the prevailing current
of activity that the people themselves had no actual collective voice in personal
representation; or whenever the peoples' voice was effected, became dismissed as
irrelevant. Cenocracy is the voicing for the need of a new Bill of Rights, a new
Constitution, a new chance for a better way of life that the present form of Democracy
attempts to omit from our lives and substitute with various illusions. We must and
will have our Cenocracy, one way or another.